Monday, January 17, 2005

Redefining Metrosexuality

Over there on Vox's blog they were talking about Sean Connery as James Bond shooing away a woman in "Dr. No" with "Go away - man talk" which I think is funny. And a James Bond movie with Sean Connery.. mmmmmm... the only outfit that I can recall that was questionable was that blue zip-up jumper thing in Goldfinger. The movie that is questionable is "Never say Never again." That is just a joke.

That got yours truly to thinking.. why is it that Sean Connery can look fabulous in his suit with a pocket square and freshly polished shoes but if a man today were to wear such, people would ask "what spa does he go to?" He would be deemed a... *drum roll* a metrosexual!

Where did we go wrong? In a world where dressing up means putting on the jeans that don't have the ketchup stain, putting on a suit signifies something is wrong with a man or he's on his way to a job interview.

One of the reasons is that we are just a more casual society. It is unusual to see anyone dressed up. They garner attention. And when you don't follow a norm, you must be labled retro or metrosexual.

The other? Loss of masculinity. James Bond (excluding Pierce Brosnan - he's cute.. but just a player) is a man. And it is Sean Connery that is the personification of James Bond. He is the best of the bunch.

It's the gun. It's a swagger. He wears the clothes - not the other way around. He knows what he wants and knows how to get it. *swoon* And he shoos women away with a spank on the butt! But, he isn't.. you know.. all Queer Eye made over about it.

Even Blake gets it.

Perhaps metrosexuality can just go by the way side. Well-dressed and dapper men with lovely ladies.. and how they got that look should remain a mystery.

Update: Blake responds with some advice on how to dress with class. Are you taking notes? You should be.